At our CAB meeting this week we had an RFC that received a split vote during approval (5-2). We have always had unanimous approval or rejection so this is the first time that we allowed an RFC to be approved with 2 saying "no". What practices do you have in terms of the CAB approval process?

CAB stands for Change Advisory Board. The decision maker is the Change Manager, who makes his or her decision based on the advise of the CAB. The Change Manager in effect states, I am willing to take the risk of implementing this change.

Sounds like you've implemented a different organization for your CAB. Does the Change Process or ancillary procedures define what happens with a split vote?

You seem to be saying that you went ahead with a change when two out of seven perspectives judged it to be unwise?

The idea of voting in this context seems ridiculous to me. Every member of a CAB is there to identify the practical implications of the change including its value, its potential impact, its planning and its implementation. If any of those there see a problem or unacceptable risk, then either the CAB needs to resolve this or the request has to be referred back for further investigation and preparation.

Each member of the CAB only has authority in their own area. so, for example, if the capacity manager expresses doubts whether there is sufficient capacity, that cannot logically be over-ruled by the development manager's desire to push ahead because he promised the customer.

The role of the change manager is to ensure that all concerns are aired and addressed, and that appropriate planning has (or will) taken place, risk assessment has been done, costs have been properly identified and approved, etc. before giving the go-ahead. The change manager has authority to balance the risks against the benefits of proceeding, up to some practical point after which s/he will refer it to appropriate higher authority, probably by rejecting the change or deferring decision.

Logically some, perhaps all, members have an effective power of veto if there are issues in their domain. Also logically, even in a voting system, any one present merely to provide information has no say on whether to go ahead or not.

If you are sitting there taking votes, you are not business driven. If you are doing that without even having a defined process to accommodate it, you are not quality driven._________________"Method goes far to prevent trouble in business: for it makes the task easy, hinders confusion, saves abundance of time, and instructs those that have business depending, both what to do and what to hope."
William Penn 1644-1718

Thanks for your input and advise. To put this in context, the debate was not over the change itself - it was well thought out, documented, approved by the business, and had identified risks and had mitigation plans if anything went wrong. The debate was allowing a change to proceed during our holiday freeze period. This change would be implemented the day after the freeze started. The 2 who "voted" no did not have a problem with the change, only with allowing an exception to the freeze.

In the end, the 2 relented and agreed with the change event. The split made me wonder what others do. Obviously you advise that the CAB participate for awareness and discussion, but the Change Manager is the ulitimate authority for approval. We have been set up where the CAB collectively gives approval. The Change Manager is really a Change Coordinator, who does everything you mention but does not have the ultimate approval authority. This discussion gives us food for though about possible changes in our structure and methods for 2011.

If the CM is merely a Change Coordinator, then there is NO change management authority and the process if followed - how is it enforced

It sounds like the CM or CC is merely a secretarial role rather than a management role

The CM should not coordinate someone else's changes. That is the responsbility of the owner of the deployment - which SHOULD NOT BE THE CHANGE PERSON_________________John Hardesty
ITSM Manager's Certificate (Red Badge)

The timing of the change is potentially as crucial as any other aspect and should be equally subject to rational decision.

The issue of the "holiday freeze" is that it is a quick and dirty way of saying that the resources required for a successful change process (process - not change, because it has to include such things as regression, back-up and communication) are not or may not be available. Your debate should have been conducted along the lines of identifying all resources required and determining how confident you were about their availability when needed. It would be relevant, for example to ascertain that your (external) third line support organization was not closing down at that period, not just your internal resources.

To reiterate John's comment, who is carrying the can for the risk? If your resources are thinner during the holiday, the risk may be greater and so someone has to accept that risk. Individual CAB members may be able to offer a risk evaluation from their various perspectives, but they are unlikely to all have the authority to vote on the overall risk since that is a business decision. If the change manager does not have the (delegated) authority to accept the risk and there is not a business representative in the CAB with that authority, then surely there has to be another action in which the CAB decision along with risk and cost evaluation is referred to whoever does have authority before a change can proceed. Of course this would be wonderfully bureaucratic and cumbersome.

In no circumstances does it make much sense to have a vote as a decision making mechanism._________________"Method goes far to prevent trouble in business: for it makes the task easy, hinders confusion, saves abundance of time, and instructs those that have business depending, both what to do and what to hope."
William Penn 1644-1718

should I punch the idiot who submits the same stupid change with all errors and no information or merely reject the email in such a way that all know he is an idiot

siiigh

decisions decisions decisions

Should I go for the happy meal at lunch just for the prize or for the stange look on the teller. Hmmm go for the diet coke or the full sugar coke_________________John Hardesty
ITSM Manager's Certificate (Red Badge)